I ran into Jeff Schapiro at a cocktail party last night and had a long, entertaining chat. Jeff, with whom I worked at Virginia Business magazine some 20 years ago before he joined the political staff at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, is truly one of the great conversationalists of all time. He’s smart, engaging and well informed. Our discussions ranged from payday lending to two-term governors. Jeff has keen insight into the workings of the state capitol, and he may be the savviest reporter in the capitol press corps.
That’s why it baffled me this morning to see the article that he and Michael Hardy had composed for the T-D‘s pre-General Assembly coverage. Once again, the duo highlighted the looming transportation battle as a purely fiscal duel with potential political consequences.
A fiscal fix for roads and rail loom largest for Republicans in the traffic-clogged Washington suburbs, bulwark of the new Democratic ascendancy. … Democrats are salivating over the prospect of another year of legislative gridlock over transportation, believing it could tip the Virginia Senate their way as well as increase their numbers in the House.
As Bacon’s Rebellion readers are keenly aware, the House of Delegates has proposed a three-pronged package of reforms that, whatever you think of its merits, would amount to the most far-reaching overhaul of zoning law and reallocation of state/local responsibility for roads in a half century. The House leaders are not automotons mouthing, “No new taxes.” They argue that any comprehensive plan to fix transportation requires more than money, and that land use reforms must be part of any transportation solution.
Has someone on the T-D copy desk banned the words “land use,” perhaps? The words did not appear anywhere in the Hardy-Schapiro story today. Nor did they show up in a lengthy companion piece by Olympia Meola about local government legislative priorities. (Imagine: a story about local government priorities without mentioning the movement to transform the way zoning works!) Nor did “land use” make into in a list of “other proposals” prepared by Pamela Stallsmith. I will say this at least: The T-D reporters weren’t displaying partisan bias. Not only did they act as if the House bills didn’t exist, they ignored Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s controversial proposal to give local governments more power to reject rezoning projects that would make traffic congestion worse.
The T-D legislative wrap-up touched upon tough-on-crime bills, payday lending, the Kelo decision, Chesapeake Bay clean-up, abortion, divorce, adultery, shoplifting, electric rates and even a bill to designate the ginger gold apple the official state fruit. But the bills that would transform the way local governments management growth — nada.
Contrast the T-D coverage with the Washington Post’s. Michael Shear dedicated his entire pre-General Assembly take-out to the growth management debate.
Rapid growth has become entangled in the bitter legislative debate over the state’s traffic problem. And lawmakers fear Virginians will punish anyone who refuses to vote to slow sprawl during the 2007 General Assembly session, which begins Wednesday.
… The result is a slew of legislation from Republicans and Democrats, including House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), aimed at reducing traffic congestion by better managing growth.
Now, I’ll admit that the transportation/land use issue is more all-consuming in the WaPo circulation area than it is in the T-D’s. But it’s impossible to understand the legislative dynamics of the 2007 General Assembly session without at least acknowledging that the growth management debate in Northern Virginia and, to a lesser degree, Hampton Roads is driving the transportation debate.